The foundational truth of
Christianity is that Christ Jesus died on the cross for our sins (1 Cor.
15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system,
reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever.

That is the doctrine of the Atonement. Its reality is not in dispute.
However, many Christians struggle to understand and live this doctrine
better. We know thatthe Atonement works; but how it works is not
as clear. Over the centuries many different theories have been suggested
to explain how the Atonement works. As C. S. Lewis and others note, no one
interpretation has been singled out as the only valid theory. With this
fact in mind, we would do well to consider some of the principal theories
and their limitations, using the Scriptures as our touchstone.

In Mark 10:45 Jesus said, "the Son of Man did not come to be
served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (cp.
Matt. 20:28, NIV). This is a powerful statement. Jesus redeemed his
followers from sin. The price of this redemption, however, was his own
life (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:18,19), the supreme expression of his love for
us (cf. John 15:13).

That Jesus described his death as a ransom payment is clear. But to
whom was the ransom paid? Jesus never said. In fact, to pose the question
is to stretch the metaphor out of shape. Yet the question was posed
nonetheless.

The first suggestion was articulated by the second-century Irenaeus of
Lyons. He argued that Jesus was paid as a ransom to the devil.
Specifically, so the theory goes, Christ was paid as a ransom to the devil
to free people's souls. This was a clever ruse on God's part, however, for
unknown to the devil, Jesus was actually God Himself. Unable to constrain
Jesus' divine soul, the devil was defeated and Christ emerged victorious.
This view, known as the "Ransom" or "Classic" theory, was taught
consistently by nearly all of the Church Fathers, including Augustine.

The Ransom theory dominated the theological landscape for a
millennium until it was finally debunked by Anselm of Canterbury (ca.
1033-1109). Anselm rightly pointed out that this theory gave the devil far
too much power. Hence Anselm gave a different answer: Jesus' life was paid
as a ransom not to the devil, but to God.

Anselm, who lived in a feudal society, saw sin as dishonor to God.
God's nature is such that He cannot overlook dishonor; thus a satisfaction
is needed. Since sinful humankind is unable to make sufficient
satisfaction, God became human to do it on humanity's behalf. Jesus is
then a payment not to Satan but to God.

The Protestant Reformers developed this doctrine by replacing God's
honor with His justice and by speaking not only of Christ's passive
obedience (death) but his active obedience as well (his fulfilling the
law). Simply put, God requires that humankind obey an immutable law in a
life of perfect, perpetual obedience. The purpose of the Mosaic law, it is
taught, was to prove humanity's inability to live up to these
requirements. By perfectly keeping the law, Jesus earned salvation. By
suffering our punishment in our place, Jesus extends this salvation to
us.

Also known as the "Penal Substitution" theory, this doctrine is common to many evangelical churches today. As it is the most popular of the theories of the Atonement, I'd like to devote considerable space to its evaluation.

Again, the Satisfaction/Penal Substitution theory is a marked
improvement over the Ransom theory. Furthermore, it takes sin seriously
and gives a rational explanation for the absolute necessity of the cross.
However, I believe it has numerous inherent flaws. This was pointed out
from the very beginning, first by Abelard whose "Moral Influence" theory
challenged Anselm's "Satisfaction" theory, then by the Socinians and later
the Arminians who criticized the Protestant "Penal Substitution"
version.

Some of these critics posed the question: If God freely
forgives sin, how could Jesus' death have been a literal payment for our
sins? To illustrate, imagine the following conversation between these
fictional characters:

Bob: Okay, Jane, you owe me ten dollars. Pay up.

Jane: Oh, but I don't have the money. Do I really have to pay
you back?

Now in the illustration, did Bob forgive the debt, or was he paid? In
fact, Bob was paid off. There was no grace, no mercy, no forgiveness of
the debt.

Similarly, if Jesus' death were a literal payment to God for all our
sins, then God cannot truly be said to forgive sin.

This observation points out the difficulty of "go[ing] beyond what is
written" (1 Cor. 4:6, NIV). Posing the question, "to whom was the ransom
paid?" takes us beyond the purview of the Scriptures. The "ransom" was not
literallypaid to anyone. It is a metaphor used to describe the
significance and dramatic effect of Jesus' death.

When the Scriptures use the language of redemption to describe our
salvation, we are always in the realm of metaphor. Consider Deuteronomy
7:8, which says that the Lord "brought you [Israel] out with a mighty hand
and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of
Pharaoh king of Egypt." Did God literally "redeem" Israel from Pharaoh?
Did he give Pharaoh (for example) the Hittites in exchange for the
Israelites, substituting one race of people for another? Obviously not.
The metaphor of ransom and redemption is used to express worshipfully the
fact that God and Christ have rescued us from sin and death by radical
means, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.

Nevertheless the Penal Substitution theory is read into the
frequent Scriptural statements that Christ died "for" us. Many Christians
read the words "for us" and mentally add "as our substitute." Though that
is one of the possible meanings of the preposition "for," however, we must
remember that the preposition can be used in more than one way. As Gordon
Clark illustrates:

For example, suppose a pastor is sick or on vacation. A visitor takes
his place. This visiting minister preaches for the absent pastor
and he also preaches for the congregation. But the preposition
for has two different meanings in these two expressions. The
visitor preaches instead of the pastor; he preaches on behalf of
or for the good of the congregation.1

So it is with the Greek prepositions. There are many Greek words
in this context which we translate with the English word "for." They
include peri (which means "about" or "concerning"), dia
("because of" or "on account of"), and by far the most common, huper
("for," "on behalf of," or "for the sake of").

None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the
place of." Hence the exact relationship between Christ's death and our
salvation is not so clearly conveyed in any of these verses. That Jesus
died "on account of" us and our sins is clear, but the Greek words
translated "for" do not of themselves spell out a doctrine of
Atonement.

A word of caution is warranted, however. Prepositions in any language
tend to be fluid. Like the English word "for," the Greek words translated
"for" can bear more than one meaning. Hence they couldimply
substitution. My point is that the prepositions neither make nor break the
case for Satisfaction/Penal Substitution. It is unwise to build any
doctrine solely on the meaning of a preposition.

That having been said, there is a fourth preposition translated "for"
in these verses which does usually imply substitution. That word is
anti and it normally means "in place of," though it can take on the
meaning of huper also.2 The term is used solely in
Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, verses on which we have already commented.
There Jesus' death is described as a ransom payment, so a word normally
implying substitution would be natural. However, it is telling that every
other verse teaching that Jesus died "for" us leans toward more ambiguous
terms.

The Penal Substitution theory invokes more than just metaphors
and prepositions, however. It also invokes Romans 3:25, which describes
Jesus "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through
faith" (NASV; cp. 1 John 2:2; 4:10). The meaning of "propitiation"
here is brought out in an NIV footnote, "as the one who would turn aside
his wrath." Certainly if Jesus' death "propitiated" or "satisfied" the
offended Father then the Satisfaction/Penal Substitution theory would be
strengthened.

So what is the key word in Romans 3:25 and related verses? Does it
really mean "propitiation"? The Greek word is hilasterion and it
means "mercy-seat." The related term in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 is
hilasmos, the term used to describe the sin-offering of the old
covenant.3 Whether these terms imply propitiation depends upon
how one believes the mercy-seat and sin-offering functioned. Hence the
wisdom of the NIV's reading "an atoning sacrifice" instead of the NASV's
"a propitiation."

Were the old covenant's animal sacrifices substitutionary in nature,
the animals "taking the place" of sinners, dying "instead of" them to
placate an angry deity? Is this very far removed from the legendary
volcano gods who need to be placated by the death of virgins? Despite
popular caricatures, the law of Moses never explicitly describes the old
covenant sacrifices as "substitutes." For that matter, the slaying of the
animals is never emphasized at all. What is emphasized is the ceremonial
use of the blood in the cultic ritual. The killing of the victim was
simply the necessary means of obtaining sacrificial blood. Similarly, in
the New Testament, Jesus' death is not substitutionarybut
sacrificial.Hence the emphasis on Christ's blood, even though
Jesus' death was not particularly bloody.

In fact, Jesus' death is frequently portrayed as a
sin-offering.4 Hence Jesus' death is expiatoryin
nature. That is to say, Jesus' sacrificial death expiates or removes our
sin. This it does by fulfilling the old covenant sacrificial system,
paving the wayfor God's forgiveness. Note this point. God's
forgiveness is not literally "purchased"; that would be no forgiveness at
all. We are frequently told that sacrifice does not automatically secure
God's favor (cf. Mic. 6:6-8). Rather, it fulfills a covenant obligation
which is a precondition for God's forgiveness. Once the sacrifice is made,
the sinner may seek forgiveness, and if he or she is sincere, God will
freely forgive.

There is another dimension to the Atonement that is neglected
in the Penal Substitution theory. That is the element of participation:We participatein the sacrifice of Jesus' death (cf. Heb.
13:11-16).

Substitution implies an "either/or"; participation implies a
"both/and." Substitution would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I don't
have to"; participation would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I must
also." Which is more Scriptural? Consider Romans 6:1-14.

A couple of remaining verses deserve comment. One is 1 Peter
2:24, which states that Christ "himself bore [or "carried up"] our sins in
his body on the tree" (NIV). This verse appears in a passage which quotes
from Isaiah 53, virtually the only Scriptural passage which may clearly
support Substitution. Yet Matthew did not interpret Isaiah in that
way.

According to Matthew, "He took up our infirmities and carried our
diseases" (Isa. 53:4, NIV) meant not that infirmities were vicariously
imputed to Christ at his crucifixion, but rather that Christ healed the
sick, thus "carrying" or "bearing" their diseases away from them (Matt.
8:16,17).

Similarly, it is possible that Jesus "bore" or "carried away" our sins
from us not by becoming our substitute, but by becoming our sin
offering.

In my judgment, Satisfaction/Penal Substitution runs contrary
to Scripture at many points:

Penal Substitution declares that salvation must be earned by perfect,
perpetual obedience;5 the Scriptures declare that God saves us
"in accordance with his pleasure and will" (Eph. 1:5, NIV).

Penal Substitution declares that "God must visit sin with
punishment";6 the Scriptures declare that God "does not treat
us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities" (Psa.
103:10, NIV).

Penal Substitution declares that in the Atonement, God is reconciled
to humankind;7 the Scriptures declare rather that humankind is
reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18,19; Col. 1:20).

Penal Substitution declares that Christ dies instead of the sinner;
the Scriptures declare that sinners must die with Christ (Rom.
6:1-14).

This is not to say that Satisfaction/Penal Substitution has no positive
features. Indeed, it emphasizes the cross and the uniqueness of Christ's
death. However, I fear it "proves too much" by negating God's forgiveness
and excluding other aspects of the Atonement. Other theories of the
Atonement have been articulated to take these other elements more
seriously.

As previously mentioned, other theories of the Atonement include
Abelard's "Moral Influence" theory, also known as the "subjective" theory,
a reaction against Anselm's "objective" Satisfaction theory. Another is
the Socinian theory, a powerful critique of Substitution which
nevertheless fails to offer a clear alternative.

Yet another is the Arminian "Rectoral" or "Governmental" theory, most
prominent within Wesleyan churches (particularly the Church of the
Nazarene). This theory is an attempt to take the Socinian critique
seriously while not fully discarding Penal Substitution. It rejects full
substitution, characterizing Christ's death as a "partial payment"
instead. This theory also emphasizes sacrifice and Atonement as a
precondition to forgiveness, not the direct cause of forgiveness. Some
Arminians combined this with the Socinian approach by emphasizing
Atonement as sacrifice without trying to explain the mechanics of
sacrifice.

These and other theories all have strengths as well as weaknesses:

The Ransom theory emphasizes redemption from evil, but at the cost of
God's sovereignty.

The Satisfaction/Penal Substitution theory emphasizes God's
sovereignty, the seriousness of sin, and the necessity of the cross, but
at the cost of God's forgiveness and the participatory aspect of
Atonement.

The Moral Influence and Socinian theories stress the persuasive aspect
of Atonement, including the Atonement as an example (cf. 1 Pet. 2:21), but
they fail to emphasize the necessity of the cross.

The Arminian alternative avoids the most prominent weaknesses of
Satisfaction/Penal Substitution, but still fails to emphasize the
"subjective" element.

While it may not be possible to articulate the "perfect" theory of
the Atonement, it should be apparent by now that the Scriptural principles
I've laid out along the way reflect various elements of each of the major
theories.

In sum: Christ's death is (objectively) a fulfillment of the old
covenant's sacrificial system and (subjectively) a reality in which we are
called to participate. Most systematic theories tend to downplay one or
the other of these elements, and all of them introduce additional
theological problems.

Now that Jesus has fulfilled the old covenant and sealed the New
Covenant in his blood, we can enter into covenantal relationship with God.
This does not mean that Jesus' death was some ethereal financial
transaction going on "behind the scenes." It is an act of sacrifice in
which we, his followers, are caught up as we die to sin and live to
God.

These covenantal and participatory aspects of sacrifice/Atonement also
pave the way for a Scriptural theme of Atonement much neglected in each of
the major theories: The theme of reconciliation, not just between humans
and God, but also between humans and humans (cf. Eph. 2:11-18). Atonement
is not just about getting saved for the afterlife. It's about becoming
reconciled with God, others, and ourselves.

Of the Old Testament sacrifices, Gordon Clark wrote: "The
primary aim of the sacrifice was to appease God's wrath and to reconcile
him to oneself."Of Christ's sacrifice: "By his accepting the
penalty of our sins, he [Christ] satisfied the justice of God, thus
propitiating God and reconciling God to those who had been his
enemies." The Atonement, p. 79.